googologywikiaorg-20200223-history
Talk:Aarex function
Googleaarex failed to follow the FB100Z gentlemen rule; He does use the existing function to put into his function. Jiawhien (talk) 09:30, June 4, 2013 (UTC) :This rule applies only on Big Number Duels. Nobody prevent us to make recursion around other peoples' functions outside of it. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 09:42, June 4, 2013 (UTC) Rule 5 A. Rule 5 of the Aarex function ( article ): Arx(a,b...c,d,e) = Arx(Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1),Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1) ...Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1) ,Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1) ,1) B. Rule 5 of the Aarex function ( Aarex's site ): Arx(a,b...c,d,e) = Arx(Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1),Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1) ... Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1),Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1),Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1)) Option B will become infinity, since Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1) >>> e Option A is weak. My suggestion for the rule is: Arx(a,b...c,d,e) = Arx(Arx(a,b..c,d,e-1),Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1)...Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1), Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1),e-1) Wythagoras (talk) 06:44, June 9, 2013 (UTC) Aarex function is faster than Rayo's Function If growth rate of Rayo's Function is e0CK, then aarex's function is faster, because it uses fgh ordinals beyond e0CK. -- A Large Number Googologist -- 19:24, October 22, 2014 (UTC) Growth rate of Rayo's Function is far beyond e0CK, however it's defined. LittlePeng9 (talk) 19:32, October 22, 2014 (UTC) Should we calculate growth rate of Rayo's Function? -- A Large Number Googologist -- 19:44, October 22, 2014 (UTC) : Growth rate of Rayo's function is beyond everything we can reasonably define. (put aside that term "growth rate" isn't well-defined) LittlePeng9 (talk) 19:48, October 22, 2014 (UTC) Is the growth rate of Rayo's Function fw1(n)? -- A Large Number Googologist -- 13:50, October 24, 2014 (UTC) : No. LittlePeng9 (talk) 13:52, October 24, 2014 (UTC) ok is fw1(n) = w? :D -- A Large Number Googologist -- 14:27, October 24, 2014 (UTC) :No, \(f_{\omega_1}\) is not defined because \(\omega_1\) has no fundamental sequence. This is because FS's are only defined for ordinals with cofinality \(\omega\) or lower, whereas \(\omega_1\) has cofinality \(\omega_1\). it's vel 14:34, October 24, 2014 (UTC) ok, here's another question: 1. is w1 the first ordinal with no defined sequence? 2. if question 1 is true, is fw1(n) the limit of FGH? -- A Large Number Googologist -- 20:09, October 27, 2014 (UTC) : 1. Specify what you mean by "sequence". If you mean fundamental sequences, then by most widely accepted definition no, because successor ordinals like 1 don't have FS. : 2. f_w_1(n) is undefined. LittlePeng9 (talk) 20:12, October 27, 2014 (UTC) 1: '' f_{\omega_1} is not defined because \omega_1 has no fundamental sequence.'' -- Vel! That. 2. Yeah, i know, but this is what i mean: Can we define fw1(n) as the limit of all FGH ordinals? (you don't understand me right?) -- A Large Number Googologist -- 20:50, October 27, 2014 (UTC) : 1. w+1 also doesn't have fundamental sequence, but fw+1(n) is handled by special successor case. w1 isn't a successor and doesn't have fundamental sequence, so we can do nothing. : 2. How can a function be limit of ordinals? And what are FGH ordinals even? (no, I don't understand) LittlePeng9 (talk) 20:54, October 27, 2014 (UTC) : Okay, I'm ending the discussion here. If you want to talk about it, we have IRC. LittlePeng9 (talk) 20:57, October 27, 2014 (UTC)